NINTH CIRCUIT SUSPENDS SPEEDY TRIAL DEADLINES IN ARIZONA

The District Court for the State of Arizona declared a judicial emergency and suspended statutory deadlines for starting criminal trials due to the heavy caseload and the lack of a full roster of judges. The court which had some of the most crowded dockets in the nation just suffered the death of its Chief Judge John Roll who was killed in the massacre in which Congressmember Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson. The Court now has three vacancies. The recent crackdown on immigration cases has placed a significant strain on the court and increased its caseload.

The Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC 1861 sets various deadlines for criminal cases, Among others it requires that defendants be indicted within 30 days of being arrested and, with certain exceptions that trials be commence within 70 days. But Section 3174, allows the Judicial Counsel of the Circuit, in this case the Ninth Circuit, upon the request of the chief judge of the District Court to suspend the deadlines.

The suspension lasts through February 19, 2012.

The Constitutional requirement of a speedy trial is not necessarily affected by the suspension. The courts have never set a specific time in which defendants must be brought to trial. Rather they have considered each case on a individual basis. In Barker v. Wingo the Supreme Court set four factors that must be considered in determining whether there is a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial provision. First the length of the delay. Second the government’s reason for the delay. Third, whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial and finally the degree of prejudice to the defendant.

While a violation of the Speedy Trial Act does not necessarily mean there is a violation of the Sixth Amendment causing a dismissal of the case it certainly affects the first element which is the length of the delay. We can certainly expect numerous motions to dismiss in the District Court for the District of Arizona as a result of the suspension of the Speedy Trial Act deadlines. But we should expect that under the second factor the court will be unlikely to grant many motions in light of a strong governmental reason, the lack of judges to hear the cases. The defendants will have to show a strong prejudice such as the death of a percipient witness who was likely to exonerate them in order to win the motions.